Science rarely operates on 'new principles'. Climatology is really applied physics, with the trick being how to correctly weight the various parameters involved in models. The fact that the climate models accurately predict historical data is something you can't dismiss. You can't just ignore that or argue the models aren't right if you can't program an alternative or show that you can do just as good a job without including human emissions of CO2.
Science is a process. We have a theory that seems to fit the data pretty well. We'll keep that theory until a better alternative arises. So far, none have. Our society has always operated on the basis of incomplete information being used to decide a course of action. All of sudden, when the issue becomes climate change, people seem to shift the goalposts and demand extraordinary levels of certainty. The figure the climatologists put on their certainty is more than 95% based on the statistical correlations between model and data (and mentioned in the IPCC reports). If we shouldn't listen to them, then it is for skeptics to show that they can also explain the data with a model that has at least that same degree of relationship.
Additional: Your analogy isn't quite correct. I take data from the stockmarket in 1900 and then use this as a starting point on which to base a model. Suppose that model (using no additional data, merely me applying the 'laws' I think that govern the stock market) correctly predicted the crash in the 1920/30s, the tech-bust of the late 90s, etc, I think you'd say 'hey ... maybe there's something in that'. The climate models that accurately model historical data are not FED that data but generate it based on the physical laws used. That suggests the physical laws are pretty well understood and that we can have confidence in the predictive power. The fact that it is historical simply means we can compare reality to the model without having to wait 10 or 20 years for verification!
>>The same is true with cancer.<<
Mike, that's just ridiculous.
Chemotherapy is still Medieval (let's kill everything and hope the patient survives). Young and apparently otherwise healthy people get sick and drop everyday for reasons we don't know.
And, the best - we don't know jack-shlt about brain biochemistry. We still think and talk about mental illness as if was some Goddamn demon that possesses people. We say that a person "has' cancer or a broken leg, but we say a person "is" schizophrenic - as if it was part of their personality.
I think that the 3rd major scientific revolution won't happen until we actually understand the structure and function of the human brain. Right now, social/ behavioral science is in the same position biological science was in during the first half of the 19th century before the theory of evolution gave it meaning.
Biologists (or as they were called at that time, Naturalists) actually knew a lot. In fact, they knew that evolution was a fact - but, they had no way to explain the evidence until Darwin's paper was published in 1859.
Today, social scientists have a lot of evidence and know a lot of facts, but they do not have something that brings it all together - and I think that what they are missing is some kind of brain-biochemical-physiological law/theory.
If someone wants to be the next Newton / Darwin / Einstein, I think that is where it is going to happen.
=====
Sage ---
>>Doctors have a better success rate. They better because the success rate of Climatologists is zero<<
Oh yeah? Then why do people keep dying? Doctors always lose in the end - 100% of the time. And, that is way more off the mark that climate scientists..
>>“There’s a lot of scatter to it<<
In the last 15 years there is almost no "scatter" - and if you understood what was going on, you would know that is a problem - not for the science, but for all off us.
=====
Pindar ---
>>Depends on the doctor, if for example he was a creationist then all his knowledge of medical science must be false.
Source(s):
Warmon logic No101<<
I don't know that it is technically a 'logic,' but I would not trust a creationist physician anymore than I would trust an airplane mechanic who believed that "man will never fly."
If evolution is false then so is medical science. In fact, without the theory of evolution every life science collapses because all biological knowledge may be false.
======
Rio ---
>>It's going to break down into the format and similarity's of what a exact science really consist of<<
OK - but what does that mean in English?
I think you have a good point. We can't be sure that reducing emissions will reduced the severity of the impacts of AGW that is causing climate change. That is why this is such a difficult question. Never before have the activities organisms emitted so much CO2 into the air that was sequestered out of the CO2 cycle so that it caused the climate to change. Never before have organisms tried to undo the impacts of those emissions. Impacts and effects are some scientist are working hard on, but it will always have more uncertainty that the climate change predictions.
In CONCEPT, removing CO2 from the air will reverse the problem, but scientists are worried about a point in which removing the CO2 will not be effective in reducing climate change and its impacts because of the feedback loops. We don't know the reality. But is this a compelling argument to do nothing, or an compelling argument to act on what we know? It is a fact that climate is changing. It is a fact that this change is faster since the end of the last ice age. It is a fact that people are now emitting more than 20Gt per year. I agree that this is very small in the scheme of the amount of CO2 in the carbon cycle, but this additional source is not completely offset by sinks, so the CO2 in the atmosphere accumulates and the concentration increases,disrupting the earth's energy balance - a fact. It is NOT a fact that reducing emissions will result in a reversal of the changes - at least in a time frame that is important to our well-being, and the longer we wait to reduce emissions the less certain we are that the impact can be reversed. But is this a reason not to respond or to respond more quickly?
I think the best medical analogy is when a doctor tells a smoker to kick the habit so that they suffer less in the future. EVERY doctor will tell a smoker this, but the habit is hard to kick so they can't stop. We use a lot of carbon, and our entire economy has become addicted to "cheap" fossil fuels that has allowed us to really improve our well-being in a very short time. We are addicted to fossil fuels in the same way that smokers are addicted to tobacco. It doesn't matter what a climate experts tell us, we want the benefits of cheap fossil fuel now and will try to kick the habit only after we can clearly see the adverse consequences of the addiction. But will kicking the habit then be enough to prevent the consequences? Maybe, maybe not. What are the most reasonable steps we can take now to hopefully reduce the severity of our fossil-addiction latter? If we find something that works, it could help with more than just climate change.
Well that is an interesting ponder...one thing you point out is that medical science is similar to climate science in terms of probabilities; based on the knowledge of medical science, a heart condition requires a certain course of treatment, but given the variables from individual to individual there isn't really any way to state the outcome with 100% certainty, something any number of people are demanding of climate science. I'm kind of that way myself-I want more certainty as far as the outcome and the benefits of a course of treatment before I am willing for us to spend money on that treatment.
But we often have a less stringent outlook on what medical professionals tell us about our own bodies and health. Here's something you said that caught my eye: "If a doctor says you need heart surgery or you have cancer and recommends treatment (with second and third opinions..."
Aren't second and third opinions nothing more than consensus? Yes, of course they are, and we accept consensus in the medical field but the fact that consensus is not sufficient when it comes to climate science suggests an extravagant standard being unequally applied for reasons not purely related to science, but due to another or multiple agenda(s)-which are pretty well known. It also reinforces that Rush Limbaugh, who started the whole 'consensus' thing, doesn't know anything about science.
So it is pretty analgous-although you might want to consider what would truly be analagous to climate change medically speaking. That would be a new disease. Based on experience with similar diseases, people in the medical profession might feel that a particular treatment would have favorable results, but there's really no way to test that to a level of 100% certainty without treating someone.
EDIT: Thanks, I have my moments-but you often pose interesting questions that are based in fact and philosophy related to relevant issues. I'll stand by my comments about consensus in science-whether medical or climate-but your response brings up precisely the point I was trying to get at; climate science is indeed like a 'new disease.' We don't know the correct treatment for climate because we really don't know enough about the extent of the problem-is it a new 'plague' or what is going on for sure and we don't have an environmental lab rat to run tests on. I completely agree that some of the cures being proposed may be more harmful than the disease, at least economically and geopolitically and have commented on that here many times. And you are right, this is why we are having these conversations. Many if not most of the arguments put forth do not address the real issues that the poser of the argument is concerned about, but are scienticifally innacurate, diversionary or simply irrelevant in their nature, so you see a lot of frustration in the responses.
The doctor analogy is used because it is something everyone can relate to. We've all been to a doctor.
How about would you prefer an arborist to decide on your trees health or a random off the street?
Or if you like would you rather a highly trained chef prepare you a meal or a random?
The point is, and I am sure you are aware of it (you don't seem that thick) is that people will generally believe the opinion/argument of a highly skilled and trained professional over a random. I know for many jobs you need to have qualifications to 'win' the job. Similarly at work we have to prepare hundred odd page tenders demonstrating experience, skills, qualifications etc. to 'win' jobs.
The whole point is that the position of someone with qualifications, training, experience, and skills in a specific field will always be held in higher regard than a random.
In regards to climate change, a climatologist is the most qualified, trained, experienced and skilled person in analysing the science of climate (hence why the analogy to doctors is used).
...is an appeal to authority. It is a fallacy, and thus it is an argument that anyone adhering to the scientific method would reject..
Anyone who makes--or defends--such an argument is making a non-scientific case. It is a way of avoiding the burden of proof, which lies soley upon the proponents of any hypothesis. That this and multiple other fallacies are so commonly used in this field leads any critically-thinking person to suspect that 'climate science' might be an oxymoron.
On one hand, to say that someone is an expert in a field other than climatology is an ad hominem argument, and one against which "warmers" have the proverbial weak underbelly. Note the qualifications of "warmer" heroes
Svante Arrhenius - Chemist
Guy Callendar - steam engineer
James Hansen - astrophysicist
Michael Mann - geologist
Andrew Dessler - chemist
On the other hand, medicine is not as mature as you would claim. What field other than medicine can an expert have years of warning that something like cancer is going to kill the patient, and watch helplessly while it does just that or break out into singing "Ave Maria" if it doesn't kill the patient. Doctors can diagnose "untreatable" diseases because they do not know enough about the disease to treat it. But climatologists do know about
Look up the precautionary principle.
OK! Never mind. Here is a funky looking liquid I found around the shop. Go ahead and drink it. Here is an electrical cable. Go ahead and touch it.
Jim Z
Something that you would have learned from climatologists
Can you name one "warmer" who is against someone making money with wind power?
Well having spent two and a half years visiting doctors/specialists because of my wife's cancer, my opinion of doctors is now very low, and i truly do not believe everything they tell me, No.1 they are indoctrinated by Pharmological drug companies, which control medical colleges, journals, send out huge amounts of pamplets etc. plus most do not have time to do research, in fact most refused to talk to me, because I was asking questions they didn't know about.
Climate scientist's no I don't trust them either (too much self interest).
Climate, "sorry any models" and theories are not worth sh-t unless tested and found to be true over extended periods, which climate models have not.
Self interest, corruption, taxes, media bias, are all good reason for not believing everything your told.
Doctors have a better success rate. They better because the success rate of Climatologists is zero.
Elizabeth: "The fact that the climate models accurately predict historical data is something you can't dismiss."
Quote by James Hansen, “Skeptics will be all over us – the world is really cooling, the models are no good.”
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”
John Barnes,a climate scientist : “If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it’s not increasing,” Barnes said. “There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn’t we warm up?”..."We do have satellites that can measure the energy budget, but there’s still assumptions there. There’s assumptions about the oceans, because we don’t have a whole lot of measurements in the ocean.”.
Are you still sticking to your misconception?
It's going to break down into the format and similarity's of what a exact science really consist of.
When a skeptic "questions" the authority of climate scientists, especially something like a consensus, one common retort goes something like this: "If you had a heart condition, would you take advice from your plumber?". Actually, that one's pretty silly.
Perhaps a better one is this: "If a doctor says you need heart surgery or you have cancer and recommends treatment (with second and third opinions), are you going to listen to him/her or take a risk on your own?" Assuming of course that you're not medically trained much like most of us aren't climate scientists.
And so goes the analogy. However, the medical field is fairly mature. We know that heart surgery is usually successful. There are several types of surgery and other treatments (e.g. blood pressure medication) which address a variety of heart problems. The same is true with cancer. There are treatments that can extend life and even put cancer into remission. These are proven many times over.
So what is analogous in climate science? If climate science says we need to curb temperature rise to 2C by 2050 through CO2 emissions reductions or there will be disastrous consequences, what is the history and evidence that supports that proclamation being accurate?
It is surely a good choice to listen to those you respect and may have advanced degrees in the subject you are concerned with but not to do some basic research for discovery using logic and the scientific method can be irresponsible when the consequences are life threatening or economically devastating or politically disastrous.
It's called The Laws of Physics, Mike. You can also include the Laws of Chemistry and The Laws of Thermodynamics.
You agreed that our adding tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere would result in a warming of the climate beyond the natural variations of the climate. I am certain that you can find "doctors" that will feed you the information that you want to hear. In this case you can listen to Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, Steve Goddard, "Lord" Monckton, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, The Heritage Institute, The Koch brothers and a list of other "doctors" that will sooth your feelings over trying to escape the realities. But, let us face the facts here, Mike. These "doctors" that sooth your wounded view of reality would be considered the quacks among the true professionals that have shown great success in their fields of study.
Added******
Physical Law states that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. This physical law is constantly being tested by automobile drivers that try to occupy the space of a tree or a brick wall. Would you like to test this physical law for yourself or are all of the previous tests of this physical law sufficient for you?
Just as climatologist have shown the physics that says that a 2 degree Celsius of warming by 2050 is possible I now insist that you show your evidence that it is not possible. What is "net beneficial" that you speak of? Are you able to break this down for us? Also, what evidence do you have that 2 degree Celsius of warming from the advent of the industrial revolution to the year 2050 would not have dire effects on nearly every species on this planet? Observational evidence does not support this line of reasoning when you consider how much has changed with only a rise of 0.8 degree Celsius warming so far. What is your evidence that a 2 degree Celsius warming by 2050 will not be over all harmful to us? ... You have NO evidence of any such thing! NONE! NADA! ZILCH! ZERO! All the observational data to date blasts your illogical thinking processes completely out of our known universe. ... Now, should I be mistaken and you actually do have evidence that vindicates your bovine fecal matter, then do present it before us. Otherwise, your lips are moving, but there are no intelligible sounds to be discerned from the noise that you are making.
Added Part 2******
OttawaMike - " I see that you, like John, completely avoid the question of evidence."
What evidence is it that you are looking for, Mike, if the evidence of observational data does not suffice for you? Are you only suffering from a sense of self importance and that no mere scientist could ever satisfy your search for evidence? Why do you not start showing us evidence that supports your thinking? Show us ANY evidence that you have that the our climate will not reach a 2 degree Celsius warming by the year 2050. Bring your evidence that shows you are far superior to the climatologist that could not get anything right unless you told them what is right. Otherwise, you only further exhibit your puppet characteristics. Amaze us, all knowing one, with your superior intellect that the climatologists could only dream of having! If they were only smart enough to even dream it. ... You have shown countless times that you do not understand the science or is it that you only wish to distort the science. ... Did you ever graduate any class with honors, or was it always with your teacher's and parents' relief?
Added Part 3*****
I am not angry, Mike. I am just tired of waiting for the science based discussions you keep claiming that you are going to bring.
Negative proof fallacy? All I asked is that you show your evidence that we will not see 2C warming by the year 2050. You are questioning the evidence that climatologist use so I am questioning the evidence that you have NOT used. I would like to see your evidence. Who knows? You might get lucky.
The only thing more asinine than comparing it to doctors is claiming it is about the laws of physics. How do you inform people who behave like children? Clearly these warm-mongers aren't interested in learning. If, for example, they leaned that CO2 moderates the temperature (it should since it is a greenhouse gas) and industry and capitalism therefore helped moderate the climate, they would still try to demonize fossil fuels to push their anti-capitalist agenda. It clearly isn't about warming. It is about anti-capitalism. I realize there are drones out there that have vague ideas in the back of their empty head about a catastrophically warming world. These drones don't hesitate to blame Sandy on SUVs.
There is no consensus. It isn't enough to say CO2 is a greenhouse gas and should cause some warming. An adult would realize that we have to know how much warming we are talking about. An adult would be able to weigh pros and cons.
Your faith in the accuracy of doctors advice is as naive as it is touching. You need to explain why physicians choose such different treatment paths for themselves than they prescribe for their patients (see reference below) before your analogy makes any sense at all.
The real question is why you choose to believe people who have no particular training in the field of climate science over people who do. Additionally, you need to answer why you choose to believe people who tell you what you want to do anyway is the correct path of action over people who tell you that you might have to make changes in your lifestyle. The Principle of Parsimony states you take these positions not because they are logical or objective, but because they agree with your self-interest. There is nothing wrong with this, but you should not try to convince anyone that you believe what you do because of a rational weighing of the objective evidence. You are, in a word, being emotional.
Depends on the doctor, if for example he was a creationist then all his knowledge of medical science must be false.
If my doctor said I was going to die tomorrow and I was alive and healthy 6 months later I would say he/she was completely wrong in their assessment.
An alarmist would say the doctor's opinion must not be questioned and that my death is just being masked by my being alive and well. So in reality the doctor was 100% correct and that I'm just a denier by not agreeing that I'm dead.
Another question that really has nothing to do with the category
